If Idaho can be said to have a conscience anymore, Justice Jim Jones must certainly be it.

Faced with impactful and poorly-conceived civic projects like a downtown stadium and a downtown events center/library, Boise citizens took matters into their own hands, went out and knocked on doors, and achieved ballot status in 2019 on two propositions that passed with 75.2 and 69.1 percent of the vote, respectively. Such a record turnout and overwhelming vote totals indicate just how far off-base those projects were with the priorities of average, tax-paying citizens witnessing a host of other, more pressing problems aggravated by the pace of our growth.

Now, it seems, the Idaho Legislature has made essentially impossible the expression of citizen sentiment on statewide issues.

A little democracy can be a dangerous thing, as the Idaho Legislature consistently seems to fear.

Thanks for posting this. How do we join Justice Jones and sign his petition?

EDITOR NOTE–He seems to have already finished his quest and delivered the petitions to the Guv.

Along with the obvious bill mentioned above, Patti Lodge and Brent Crane are pushing a bill to require IDAHO Voters to physically be IN Idaho to sign a petition. To be a registered Idaho voter and citizen is not enough!

They say, “You must be standing on Idaho soil to voice your opinion”.
So imagine a CITIZEN’S Initiative to legalize cannabis. Where would one go to efficiently collect signatures of those in approval? How about Ontario, and that little town called—- what is it? Oh yea, Huntington. A person could stand in those parking lots looking at the hundreds of 1A, 2C, 1G, and 2O plates (et al).
Are you a registered Idaho voter? Support this?
Same for the North Idaho folks using Washington ‘green stores’. Signers still have to be verified.

To say nothing of the ?millions of tax dollars going to Oregon & Washington instead of Idaho. Sad policy and sadder politics.
Maybe, next, these folks will want to require Idaho voters to be standing in their personal residence doorways to participate in democracy.

The Idaho Rs are scared of real Idaho Voters.
The Idaho Libertarians really *should* be in support of such initiatives, right Rand Paul?
The Idaho R are scared their ideology bubble might burst and go up in smoke.
VETO IT.

My hat is off to Jim.

SB1110 increases democracy by requiring that every county have a voice. We’ve seen the unfolding disasters on the left coast when a few population centers force their views on an entire state, and we simply don’t want that here.

Hey what’s with the anti-Idaho bias of that 208 show guy. No respect for traditions and politic that made Idaho great. He needs to move to a liberal state.

As for the bill. I can see both sides of the problem. Without this bill the NorthEnd can control all of Idaho. So we need something in the middle, reasonable.

Some of the voices here are move ins looking for a state of idiocy and conflict. What’s a libtard, and how do you call J.Jones one? Shut mouth.

Boise Lawyer, I like your point!

And Concerned Neighbor, that is absolutely ridiculous! Please stop being scared and fantasizing about krap. To contrary Idaho DOES have “a few [People] forcing their views on an entire state. They are 3 farmers of a particular uneducated persuasion.

There is no greater ‘will of the people’ than to but a citizen’s initiative ON THE BALLOT.
If a “population center” opines in one matter and they are majority – so be it. If the majority votes are in rural Idaho and opposed to the ‘population center’ then so be it. We don’t know that answer unless there is a state-wide. To do otherwise is anti-democracy.
Are you opposed to Democracy CN?

Easterners and others proved my points to be correct.

Democracy is not just 50%+1. That is Tyranny of the Majority, and there are many safeguards in the constitution and laws against it. Democracy is rule by the people – all the people – and engagement with all parties provides the best paths forward. If a couple percent of people in an area can’t be convinced of something then the argument for the proposed change is not sound.

To much direct democracy always fails. That’s why we have a Democratic Republic. History is littered with well intentioned democratic wrecks, and today’s failed examples of too much direct democracy include Iraq and California. Rather than reinvent the wheel, we need to learn from other’s mistakes. Democracy needs to be about listening and inclusion, not about forcing the views of 50%+1 on everyone else.

The irony here is just too rich! Not only is the Legislature trying to take power away from the Executive, but now they’ve come for the people, too. Who’s left? If I was a judge, I’d be wondering just exactly how I’d be kept from doing my constitutional duty.

Some facts:
* Signing a petition shouldn’t mean you automatically agree with the cause–but most people won’t sign a petition for a cause they don’t agree with.
* The Legislature has themselves all in a snit about Medicare, obviously. Keep in mind the rules around initiatives were tightened after the people booted the Luna laws, and the term limits initiative was summarily executed at dawn by the Legislature, despite passing.

Oh, and Concerned Neighbor: none of the legislators from my district support this bill. Does that mean I’m being disenfranchised? It sure feels like it.

Why is it I’m pretty sure that if the shoe was on the other foot (Democrats ran the state) that Republicans would be screaming if there was an attempt to limit initiatives? Seems it only matters whose ox is being gored 🙁

Can’t speak for others, but I personally find it very offensive that Vick, Moyle, and the rest of them seem to think they are smarter than the rest of the citizens of Idaho.

funkhobo et al, you have a contradiction–
You imply requiring a supermajority (because a simple majority of the voters is somehow wrong?), prevents the possibility of a MINORITY of voters being able to make law. That’s wrong.
A minority of the voters might be able to get an initiative on the ballot, with a lot of work; but they will NOT be able to make it law- unless of course no one else cares enough to vote on the ballot measure.
Your reference of potheads- forgoes all the people in favor of initiatives for Term Limits (a 1996 Wyoming case is exactly on your point), Medicaid Expansion, and a long list of other initiatives. There is MUCH more than legal weed at stake here.

Your stated idea of ‘super majority as other states’ is questionable.
So if 3 other states so something, that is sufficient for Idaho to follow along?
Google, says, only FIVE states offer what you mention- for statutory change.
Hobo, by your standard, (super%) it only makes sense if 33 states do it. Five doesn’t cut it. Ha!
FIGHT AGAINST THEIR POWER HOBO!
.
Put it on the ballot. Let’s decide.

What is most interesting is how the ‘initiative’ process is varied from state to state.

I find it ironic I finally got my Obama money from Trump. I’m looking for the life jackets and boats now that we have a guy clearly running on vapors at the helm and his VP is an angry radical. When was the last time we had a competent trustworthy president? Or mayor?

What you all are complaining about is high levels of corruption in our boated governments. It’s cleverly disguised as necessary policy and expenditures. In Idaho they take office and immediately push a personal agenda without even trying to hide it. The concept of representative government is lost and no longer taught to youth.

Idea! Keep the State and Federal Senate bodies in force as they are (for now) but replace the House bodies with a more direct interaction from the voter. Computers control and give access to the entire world. I can book a flight, buy a car, go to school on a computer. I see no need to have this bunch of political swindlers making decisions for me. The House bodies should be the first to go, however some of you might improve this idea with further input.

Let’s see, the Statesman doesn’t like it, the ACLU doesn’t like it. Nor does (presumably) BLM, Antifa, ISIS, Putin or the CCP. Why? Because this law distributes power to the people all across the state. The aforementioned want the metro-elites to rule based upon out-of-state well-funded Leftist signature gatherers.
My legislative district (14) supports it, as does our delegation. This is simply a good law for good self government.

Weak. Lack of leadership.
Gov Little says, “Whether Senate Bill 1110 amounts to an impermissible restriction in violation of our Constitution is highly fact-dependent and, ultimately, a question for the Idaho judiciary to decide,”
.
“I also expect the federal courts may be called to determine whether Senate Bill 1110 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

###
So knowing it will go to the courts to decide, he simply punts instead of providing leadership to ‘his’ political party.
Due in fact, he is not leading a party at all. A group that is split and being occupied by so many Teabaggers.
As stated above, by a formidable and respected Idaho Justice- it is bad policy. And just like the same-sex legislation, Idaho will now spend too much tax money trying to defend EXTREMIST opinions. https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/post/idahos-constitutional-defense-fund-backstop-shaky-legislation#stream/0
3.1 Millions Idaho tax dollars so far. In the toilet. Sad for Idaho politics.
Moderate, reasonable Republicans should remember this in the next general election.

Jim Jones:
Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Former Idaho A.G.
Republican.
JD from Northwestern.
Vietnam Army Officer.
Several Idaho Republican offices.
.
It doesn’t get much more Republican. Would be a trusted advisor to any Idaho politician.